Does Apple really assign engineers to “fake” projects as a loyalty test?

How an Apple rumor became instant "fact."

"Apple Makes New Employees Work on Fake Products Until Apple Can Trust Them", blared a headline—and many others like it—last January. In the Apple-watching world, it has since become common wisdom that the company assigns new engineers to "fake" projects in order to test their loyalty—that is, their propensity to leak—before giving them actual work.

The claim took life with the publication of a book called Inside Apple, which claimed some employees were "hired into so-called dummy positions, roles that aren't explained in detail until after they join the company." Author Adam Lashinsky cited an unnamed Apple engineer who said he wasn't informed of what he would be working on until his first day on the job. This expanded into a wider-reaching "fake products" claim made when Lashinsky spoke about the book at LinkedIn. After his talk, an unnamed audience member said that a friend had worked on "fake products" at Apple for nine months before being put on something real. The point was related to Lashinsky's reporting on Apple's notorious secrecy and was meant to highlight the extremes to which Apple goes to protect its trade secrets. The moment was captured on video, and the idea that Apple puts employees on fake projects took offwithin the Appleblogosphere and became widelyaccepted as fact.

But is it true? I was prompted to look into the question after several friends—Apple employees, no less—expressed disbelief at the claim. Their skepticism matched my own experience; in my years of reporting on Apple and speaking to many of its employees, I had never heard of such a practice. When I sought answers by interviewing current and former Apple engineers, I found that "fake" projects are certainly not a regular occurrence at Apple—and they quite probably do not exist at all.

Fake projects? What fake projects?

"Apple always seemed to be a no-bullshit kind of place when it comes to the seriousness of your work and what you get done," one former engineer told me when I asked him about fake projects. "I find it suspect that they'd ever waste their own and the employee's time on something that didn't directly contribute to their bottom line somehow."

I spoke to Apple employees from various areas of the company at differing levels, some who are still at Apple and others who have moved on, but all expressed the same sentiment. No one reported any direct experience of being put on a fake project at Apple, and no one knew a friend or colleague at the company who had. A single former employee acknowledged having heard about fake projects—but only from a friend-of-a-friend-of-a-friend, and the employee was quick to acknowledge that the rumor should be treated with a skeptical eye.

"I don't really see the need for that kind of stuff because everything is NDAed [governed by a nondisclosure agreement] out the ass," one current employee told me. "You can be hired for a position where they don't tell you what you're working on beforehand, sure, but if they're choosing to hire you with your skill set, you might be able to hazard a guess on what it's about. It's a lot easier to have someone sign an NDA and then fire them if they violate it."

Indeed, multiple individuals I spoke to highlighted Apple's "generous" use of the NDA for projects, or parts of projects, or even parts of parts of projects. The point isn't just to hold employees accountable if information gets out, but also to serve as a constant reminder that Apple is watching. The attitude directly affects hiring—employees said that managers try to hire people who are clearly enthused about the job and about Apple, not the type who come off as someone who might leak right away.

"Everything we work on, there's a new NDA for," one engineer said. "If we had any questions about whether someone would be able to maintain confidentiality, we just wouldn't hire them. And if they did leak, they'd just get fired."

Several current and former engineers said that few US Apple employees would dare leak outside the company, echoing our report from last October, "Apple's secret garden: the struggle over leaks and security." Apple has plenty of leverage over its own state-side employees, of course, including the prospect of firings and even lawsuits; more positively, most employees stay silent out of loyalty to their teammates.

But the leaks often come fast and furious from Apple's partners in its Asian supply chain. Contract factory workers and non-Apple executives are seen as having far less skin in the game, making them more willing to publish unreleased product information. "Clearly, the people who need the security training are not [in Cupertino]. They're not getting the same level of scrutiny as we are, and it shows," one current employee told me last October.

"Apple is so containerized and siloed that rumors [among employees] tend to be the same as Internet rumors," said the former engineer who acknowledged hearing about allegedly fake projects through the grapevine. "It's mostly horse shit and links to pictures from Chinese factories."

But when it's not, the company has ways of sending a message.

Security lockdown

If Apple does catch wind of leaks from inside Cupertino, it's willing to go all Men in Black in order to find the source. A former employee familiar with Apple's security procedures said he has personally witnessed "lockdowns" wherein a part of the floor or office is surrounded by security personnel—usually outside contractors with backgrounds in the military, CIA, or FBI.

Employees working within the lockdown area have to remain in their offices while security visits each desk in order to copy data from computers and other devices. The security team claims it can zero in on a leak almost instantly (though some investigations do take longer), and it may choose one individual to take away for further questioning.

Though it sounds scary, the practice is uncommon. When asked how often such a thing might happen, the former employee told me, "At most I feel like it'd be once every couple of years." He went on to say that such an incident is often enough for those considering leaking info to the outside world to reconsider their plans.

Fake "fake" project, bro

So how did the fake projects rumor get started? As it turns out, Lashinsky never meant to imply—and didn't actually say in either his book or in the LinkedIn talk—that he was referring to fake projects. "I can see how 'dummy projects' was a poor choice of words on stage that day," Lashinsky told me in reference to the LinkedIn video. "The concept I was trying to describe might best be worded as 'placeholder' positions or 'unspecified' projects."

Our own sources acknowledged that Apple may not tell an engineer what project he or she is about to work on until the time comes, which is what Lashinsky was talking about in Inside Apple. Lashinsky clarified that the "fake" projects line didn't come from him but secondhand from an audience member, who had himself heard about it from a friend.

Let's assume that Audience Member's friend really did make this claim and wasn't attempting to deceive. Here's what might have happened: an employee was assigned to one of Apple's many experimental projects to see whether it would work out. It didn't, and the project was eventually killed. The employee—particularly if he or she were new and unfamiliar with Apple's practices—might have thought that this was a "fake" product, then complained to a friend about their supposedly wasted time.

My sources all agreed that this seemed like the most likely scenario, though two pointed out that being the most likely idea still doesn't make it likely. "If that happened, it would have been for a small project that a manager wanted or something," one former employee said, pointing out that Apple runs extremely minimal, barebones teams for its secret projects.

"Sometimes projects get canceled and never see the light of day," acknowledged a current employee who has been at Apple for roughly a decade. "But in my experience, it's highly unlikely that a new employee would be put on one of those."

Update: Red Sweater Software's Daniel Jalkut, a former Apple employee, chimed in with his experience on Twitter. "I never, in 7 years there heard of anybody’s time being intentionally wasted on a fake project. Canceled projects, sure," he said.

What is happening is that the fact that there are faked projects is NDA as well, so even that won't leak. They probably tell some people about fake projects that are not actually even fake projects, and see if that leaks, which would mean somebody leaked about a fake project, which he/she is not supposed to leak about even if he/she knows it's fake. In fact, most of the projects at Apple are fake projects that nobody is actually working on. This can be confusing for Apple employees, as you never know if a fake project is actually a really fake project, or just an imaginary fake project. Sometimes, a confused employee actually start working on one of those projects. I know from a source that this is how the iPad was born.

What is happening is that the fact that there are faked projects is NDA as well, so even that won't leak. They probably tell some people about fake projects that are not actually even fake projects, and see if that leaks, which would mean somebody leaked about a fake project, which he/she is not supposed to leak about even if he/she knows it's fake. In fact, most of the projects at Apple are fake projects that nobody is actually working on. This can be confusing for Apple employees, as you never know if a fake project is actually a really fake project, or just an imaginary fake project. Sometimes, a confused employee actually start working on one of those projects. I know from a source that this is how the iPad was born.

I thought the iPad was born long before the iPad came out. It was the iPod Touch before it was the iPad.

Stuff like this is why I don't understand why people in the U.S. are so often fearful of government. Yes government do evil things sometimes, but at least they are democratically accountable and supposed to serve the people.

Corporations do evil things all the time, are not accountable to the people, only to make more money for their shareholders and (at least American ones) seem to often be run like miniature tyrannies or dictatorships. I think Apple is better now that the 'Dear Leader' has died but even so I can't understand how the shakedowns described in the article are legal or tolerated.

You don't have buy into a corporation... the government on the other hand.

What is happening is that the fact that there are faked projects is NDA as well, so even that won't leak. They probably tell some people about fake projects that are not actually even fake projects, and see if that leaks, which would mean somebody leaked about a fake project, which he/she is not supposed to leak about even if he/she knows it's fake. In fact, most of the projects at Apple are fake projects that nobody is actually working on. This can be confusing for Apple employees, as you never know if a fake project is actually a really fake project, or just an imaginary fake project. Sometimes, a confused employee actually start working on one of those projects. I know from a source that this is how the iPad was born.

This coming from a corporation that has a psychology manual for their sales employees. Yea...taking this whole article with a grain of salt.

The 'fake' projects are probably just small bullshit projects. Ones that likely don't matter but they need to examine anyway. These happen all the time in design. Sometimes its better just to work on something than to just sit around talking about doing something.

What is happening is that the fact that there are faked projects is NDA as well, so even that won't leak. They probably tell some people about fake projects that are not actually even fake projects, and see if that leaks, which would mean somebody leaked about a fake project, which he/she is not supposed to leak about even if he/she knows it's fake. In fact, most of the projects at Apple are fake projects that nobody is actually working on. This can be confusing for Apple employees, as you never know if a fake project is actually a really fake project, or just an imaginary fake project. Sometimes, a confused employee actually start working on one of those projects. I know from a source that this is how the iPad was born.

I thought the iPad was born long before the iPad came out. It was the iPod Touch before it was the iPad.

do you really gain anything more valuable than an income to leak info?the lure of internet fame isn't that great to me.

Well if you read about espionage as it pertains to state secrets (rather than corporate secrets) it turns out money is only a partial motivating factor. It can be a factor if someone suddenly falls on hard times but most leakers don't make that much money, or at least not as much as you would expect given the risks taken. Also common are ego and rage. Ego that your skills are under-appreciated, that you are under-compensated, that no one is listening to your technical analysis, that people are refusing to acknowledge the problems (bugs, flaws, geopolitical situation) you've identified or the opportunity you spotted. So you want to take that knowledge elsewhere to get the attention it deserves and the attention YOU deserve. And then rage comes in as it does for any disgruntled employee: rage that you've been passed over for promotion, or been humiliated at work. Part of the goal is to punish the employer. I imagine it is the same with corporate espionage: employees who rightly or wrongly think they are better than everyone else who are angry at the dullards they work for and all the people in their public and private lives who don't appreciate them.

(Note this applies to state side Apple employees who are 'in the loop' so to speak. Suppliers may have different motivations for leaking.)

Then think about that: if Apple did not want the truth about imaginary fake projects to come out, they would post it on a forum thread, and make it seem like it's just sarcasm, so that the idea would be dismissed as ridiculous.

You don't have buy into a corporation... the government on the other hand.

LOL... democratically accountable and supposed to serve the people...

Well you can potentially choose to move country to one which has a government which better suits your ideology and you can also vote to change the people ruling your country.

Meanwhile many corporations are such powerful monopolies that it's impossible or cost prohibitive to avoid them. Then you end up in the worst of worlds paying money to an entity that you have no say over how they are governed or what their ideology is.

Regulation could and should help with this but unfortunately, as already alluded, many people in the U.S. seem to have this thing against government 'interference' when really it is just the government imposing their democratic mandate to reign in the excesses of corporate excess.

Stuff like this is why I don't understand why people in the U.S. are so often fearful of government. Yes government do evil things sometimes, but at least they are democratically accountable and supposed to serve the people.

Corporations do evil things all the time, are not accountable to the people, only to make more money for their shareholders and (at least American ones) seem to often be run like miniature tyrannies or dictatorships. I think Apple is better now that the 'Dear Leader' has died but even so I can't understand how the shakedowns described in the article are legal or tolerated.

You don't have buy into a corporation... the government on the other hand.

LOL... democratically accountable and supposed to serve the people...

In theory, but theories don't always match reality. The way it's set up most political institutions are insulated from accountability, even if their members don't completely share that insulation. There is at least a process in place for the little accountability they has to maintain. Also they are supposed to serve the people, they don't always do what they are suppose to do.

In theory, but theories don't always match reality. The way it's set up most political institutions are insulated from accountability, even if their members don't completely share that insulation. There is at least a process in place for the little accountability they has to maintain. Also they are supposed to serve the people, they don't always do what they are suppose to do.

Absolutely - they are not perfect. But we have corporations with ever increasing power who don't even have much theoretical accountability let alone real. I mean, it's fairly clear that this fake project thing isn't common, but the fact that the company hires a bunch of thugs to lockdown areas and imprison people at their desks seems highly illegal. Just because someone is their employee doesn't mean they own them like a slave. At least in government people have established rights, it seems companies like Apple don't believe in those rights for their workers.

(And no this isn't an attack on Apple, specifically. It relates to the treatment of employees by many corporations, Amazon's enslavement of their warehouse workers being another shining example of corporate abuse).

Companies like Apple try new things all the time. Sometimes those ideas fail, but people still work on them. I've worked on failed projects AND highly successful ones over the years. One project was cancelled after the company had already spent $500M. The suppliers knew about the cancelation before I did - the hint was when I was the only person to attend a daily meeting. An hour later, my boss had an emergency meeting and explained what was going on. The suppliers were all headed to the airport to get out of town by that point.

I've also been put on make-work projects to keep me at a company while they planned a transfer to another project team. That can take a few months.

This isn't anything unusual in corporate America. Secrecy is important when you are planning to impact the lives of real people sometimes. Making certain that someone being fired knows it before others do is one thing that a responsible employer does. If 50% of the people on a team are being fired, it is good to handle that with some sensitivity. I've been on all three sides - fired, left behind and the manager who had to tell people they were "excess manpower." It is not an easy day for anyone.

I think apple manages some of the leaks, as it gains them a lot of free publicity, particularly from the tame apple press.

With that said, they may look toward a leaker who can spread the rumour more effectively and widely as an asset; that is to say, someone who can get lots of publicity, but also keeping the mystique on the leak, so it doesn't look like it's a marketing exercise.

There may be some truth in there somewhere, but I suspect it's quite a bit different from "fake projects". More likely prototype work for products that may never actually be mode (or not in that form) in order to help Apple see if they're viable, or work out any issues before starting a final version of the project.

I mean look at a lot of the patent applications that Apple puts in; some (or maybe even a majority) of them may never be used, but they must have people at the company working on these things to see if they could be used, and Apple is simply patenting the ideas in case someone else beats them to it.

There are also likely projects that are initially for an existing project, but are eventually used in an all-new product instead.

I think it would be silly of Apple not to try and keep tabs on information leaks, but they could be doing this with subtly adjusted information for each team/employee, so if information is leaked then there may be details that point to who did it, so they can be held accountable for being an awful employee.

As mentioned in the article, Apple is too much of a bottom-line company to waste money on truly fake projects. People have such strange reactions to Apple as a company that it seems even the silliest rumours suddenly become acceptable.

As for the security and NDA's, those are common in many companies and industries. I work as a geologist in the oil industry and we have tons of proprietary data to protect. I signed a confidentiality agreement when I was hired and all our contractors and consultants must do the same. And my company is small time compared to some that have key carded buildings wherein they can track your time in/out all day long and what floor you were on and have locked down floors that only certain staff can access etc.

My first employer started me out with the task of writing "help menus" for one of their products. After a week or two, they came back to me with a real assignment, which turned out to be on a completely different product. Apparently this was standard procedure; a way to get us newbies to familiarize ourselves with their products, while also keeping us from interfering with active projects.

To this day, the most they have in the way of a "help menu" is a list of support contact info...

(a) You hire people with high skills when you can, not necessarily when you have work for them. Ideally, people targeted for key positions in up-comming projects are in-house or hired before kick-off.

(b) The cream of the crop fresh grad engineers and programmers tend to be hired in bunches, when they are available and in many cases are rotated through various projects to give them experience and to see what talents/interests they have. Usually, companies need some time to "weed" out recruits from the bunch and assigning lower-level work as a "test" is pretty common way to do it - the smart, motivated people get whatever is assigned done, and the laggards bitch about whatever is convenient.

(c) Just because a job assignment is being used as a "placeholder" or "test" does not mean that is the purpose, rather that you get people working on what is available when they become available and transfer them when the time comes.

I definitely find it hard to believe good companies would "waste" people doing meaningless work as a loyalty test, because the good companies usually have high pressure working environments that are pretty results oriented and the peer-pressue alone tends to weed-out the laggards.

And objectively, were we see most of these leaks coming from is supply chains where the pay ain't so great and the jobs inglorious, so why not have a little fun?

What about entry level engineers working on projects that are more experimental and just never get put into production? Just because a project you worked on didn't RTM doesn't mean it was fake.

Not just that, but there are tons of projects that are pretty much crap-work that none of the more senior engineers want to deal with, so they get shoved off onto the new hires. It gives them a chance to see how the new guys actually work in that environment, and gives the new guys a little experience in the corporate culture.

My experience with Apple, Google, and Microsoft people is that new people are not put on new products, because they haven't had enough time to "bake". They can't be fully trusted yet, so they don't get put on the super leading edge projects. That's the loyalty test as a whole.

"Author Adam Lashinsky cited an unnamed Apple engineer who said he wasn't informed of what he would be working on until his first day on the job."

The monsters! No wait, that's like pretty much any job. Next thing they'll claim Apple makes its asshole managers pretend they aren't assholes while interviewing candidates.

"The attitude directly affects hiring—employees said that managers try to hire people who are clearly enthused about the job and about Apple, not the type who come off as someone who might leak right away."

That, to me, seems worse. It means Apple will only ever hire fanbois and optimists, never thoughtful, critical skeptics, when any organisation needs both.

"Employees working within the lockdown area have to remain in their offices while security visits each desk in order to copy data from computers and other devices."